1. Describe the Hamitic Hypothesis, the evidence Sanders' utilizes to make her argument, and detail why is it important to our understanding of African history.
2. What is Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop's argument in regard to Egypt and what evidence does he provide for his conclusions?
3. How and by whom is Dr. Diop's thesis challenged? Do you agree with this analysis? Why or not?
1. The Hamitic Hypothesis is a theory on the development of Egypt in relation to Africa that has grown and altered over time. With beginnings steeped in an embellished interpretation of The Bible which identifies the African race as the morally degenerate “Negroid” descendant of a cursed son of Noah, Ham, and labels them Hamites, the theory shifted with discoveries of Hamite scientific, artistic, and social capabilities uncovered by Napoleon’s conquer and exploration of Egypt. With the impressive capabilities of Ancient Egyptians rumored to be Hamites uncovered and The Enlightenment pushing the historical world for a scientific comprehension of the role of the Hamite in the development of the African race, historians justified their continued subjugation of Africans in the slave trade by then revising the Hamitic Hypothesis to suggest Hamites were of Caucasian origin and spread culture across Africa. Sanders argues such a theory to be biased and derived from a need for justification of slavery. Her evidence is comprised of several theological documents showing the strange twists acquired by The Hamitic Hypothesis, various period texts written by historians that exemplify the attitudes of historians across multiple periods of time, and summations of the interpretations of key figures in the development of the Hamitic Hypothesis such as John Hanning Speke. A thorough understanding of this hypothesis is necessary to the research of African history because it is important to comprehend the racism, bias, and improper motives of past African historians in order to have a whole view of the inadequate ways in which Africa has been viewed in the past. The hypothesis is also important to know so that it is possible to be free of it as we learn more of African history as Sanders’ suggests.
ReplyDelete2. Dr. Cheik Anta Diop takes on the previously mentioned Hamitic Hypothesis by exploring the true race of the Hemitic population, the descendants of Canaan (Ham’s cursed son), and essentially the founders of Egypt. Diop takes the stance that ancient Egyptians were indeed black, or of the African race, as opposed to Caucasian. He uses primarily evidence from Herodotus, a Greek historian who observed Egyptian culture during his lifetime. Diop gives multiple examples of Herodotus's writings which suggest things like Ethiopians and Egyptians being related, all the while offering no distinction between their races and no proclamation that Egyptians were anything but of the African race. With this in mind and the credibility of Herodotus as an ancient historian established, Diop delves into the reasoning for the Jewish writing of a cursed son of Noah that was meant to symbolize the African race. Diop suggests that such a notion was put forth in Genesis in retaliation to the oppression and enslavement of the Jewish population by the African Egyptians prior to Moses’s Exodus. This offers even more evidence as to the African origins of ancient Egyptians.
3. Dr. Diop’s thesis is challenged by Raymond Mauny. Mauny picks apart Diop’s assertion that Egyptians were wholly of the African race by analyzing Diop’s main evidence: quotations from Herodotus. Mauny offers a different analysis than Diop’s of the meaning of certain key phrases in Herodotus’s writings: such as the term “black” only meaning darker than the Greeks and not inherently of the African race. Mauny also includes an anthropologist's assertion that Egyptians were not wholly of the African race when he analyzes C. S. Coon’s The Races of Europe. These, along with a thorough dismissal of The Bible as a viable source for such historical debate, are all used collectively by Mauny to argue only that Egypt was a crossroads of continents and that to attribute its founding to only one of the many races that intermingled there is unfounded.
1. The premise of the Hamitic Hypothesis holds that anything worth noting in Africa’s history was originated by white peoples. Sanders first traces the origins of the theory, beginning with the biblical tale of Ham being cursed by his father Noah. This cursed generation of Ham at first had nothing to do with race, but later it was stipulated by Hebrew myth that they had been cursed with the physical attributes of “Negros,” then being considered what Sanders calls “Negro-Hamites.” She goes on to explain this concept of a race of servants sat well the rise of slavery in the world, as it reaffirmed such practices. As slavery grew, so did the conception of Negros as lesser beings and eventually as being subhuman. Sanders then depicts the evolution of the theories developing opposition: on one side stood researches who came into Egypt with Napoleon and concluded that “Egyptians were Negroids,” the lesser form of humanity, and on the the other were those such as Count Volney who found blacks to be of the same species as whites. This school of thought continued as Sanders sites the Reverend M. Russell in the conclusions that Egyptians were Hamites, but in no real way subservient or lesser to other men. But, the persistence of slavery most notably in the United States led to an interest in proving scientifically why blacks were this way: “Craniology,” as Sanders presents. After most of the Hamitic Hypothesis’s evolution, she argues that it was simply a development that easily rationalized slavery and that in truly examining Africa’s history, such evidence does not exist and other explanations must be considered.
ReplyDelete2. Diop is of the opinion that Egyptians were indeed black and had been throughout their existence and development. After a brief mention of the existence of the Hamitic Hypothesis, Diop turns attention primarily to observances made by the Greeks, specifically those of Herodotus. Next, a biblical evaluation is provided, which ascertains that Jews who were persecuted by Egyptians seemingly attributed Ham’s curse to their oppressors, but did so retroactively and not factually. The last section is the noting of similarities in both African and Egyptian kingship, that the people’s wellbeing was actually linked to the health of the ruler. Similar ceremonies which ended the rule of a weakening leader in both cultures denote this.
3. Diop’s conclusions are challenged by Raymond Mauny with the assertion that just because Egypt must have had black racial composition/influence Egypt was entirely composed of blacks. In my evaluation, Mauny seems to have a more undeniable point of view, especially due to my recollection of Basil Davidson’s mention of a multi-racial Egyptian empire. It does appear to me that with this consideration, there must have been more to Egypt’s racial make-up than one black color.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete1. The Hamitic hypothesis suggests that a race of lighter skinned people (Caucasians) migrated to Africa and were the civilized and superior race, while the darker people were uncivilized and inferior. The Hamitic Hypothesis also states that the Caucasians were responsible for the development of African civilizations. According to Problems in African History, “the political development of African peoples was the product of intermixture with a superior, presumably Hamitic, race.” (pg. 2) Sanders argues that there were no white Hamites and she uses Biblical mythology to utilize her argument. The biblical story in which Noah cursed the descendants of his son, Ham, who was thought to be the ancestor of Africans or of darker skin. This passage later helped encourage white Christians with the enslavement of Africans. It is important to understand African history because this is the land where we all came from. If you do not know your history, you are subject to blind ignorance. As my professor Alicia so nicely stated, there is some form of racism in the rejection of evolution because people do not want to believe they are from Africa. Understanding the beginning of African history will allow people to learn the true history of the world and to teach the generations to come that we are all the same and we all have the same red blood pumping through our veins. If people learned about African history and where they really came from, there wouldn’t be so much racism and hatred in this world.
2. Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop’s argument states that Egyptians were Negroes and that Negroes were the origin of civilizations. Negroes were the first to invent math, astronomy, the calendar, religion, the arts, etc. Dr. Diop uses several facts and resources to support his argument. First, Dr. Diop uses quotes from Herodotus, the “father of history.” Herodotus states that the people of Egypt were “black-skinned and have woolly hair.” Next, Dr. Diop uses ‘Geography’ by Strabo who said Egyptians, Ethiopians and Colchians belong to the same race, the Negro race. Finally, Dr. Diop uses the bible to support his evidence. According to the bible, “Egypt was peopled the offspring of Ham, ancestor of the blacks.”
3. Dr. Diop’s thesis is challenged by Raymond Mauny. Similar to Dr. Diop, Mauny uses several reasons and resources to challenge him. First, Mauny rejects Dr. Diop’s evidence about Herodotus, saying that Herodotus was not speaking of Egypt when he said “the heat makes people black.” He also states that calling people black does not necessarily make them Negro. He gives an example of the Greeks and Egyptians—the Greeks regarded Egyptians as black because they were darker than the Greeks. Mauny said this expression is common, but does not make a person Negroid. Mauny also rejects the evidence Dr. Diop used from Strabo. Mauny does agree that the two countries—Ethiopia and colchida—were colonized by Egyptians, but he did not see any evidence that stated they were black. Lastly, Mauny rejects the biblical story that Dr. Diop used. According to Mauny, “nowhere [in the bible] does Genesis speak of the color of the descendants of Cham or Canaan: the Israelites were only conscious of being lighter.” (pg.45). To conclude, Mauny stated that Egypt is a melting pot of races and to categorize everything down to one race is to contradict the truth. I agree with some points of Mauny. Dr. Diop should have been clearer with his evidence of Herodotus and not excluded anything out. It’s like a court trial: When a judge rules important evidence inadmissible and prevents the jury from hearing about it, they will never know the truth.
1. The Hamitic Hypothesis says that everything found in Africa with some value was introduced by Hamites. It is a convenient explanation for the signs and evidence of civilization found in Black Africa. These Hamites are believed to be of the Caucasian race. One piece of evidence used in this hypothesis is biblical evidence. The idea that the descendants of Ham from the bible are cursed by being Black. This would oppose the theory by stating that the Hamites were black. But Sanders points out that a cursed Ham wouldn’t be the creator of a great civilization. Also, language is used as evidence for the Hamitic Hypothesis. It is proven that the Hamitic language belonged to the Caucasoid peoples. By understanding where information and technology came from in Africa it is easier to understand the movement of people groups and the timeline of advancements throughout Africa.
ReplyDelete2. Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop argues that Egyptians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians and ancient Arabians were all black. One piece of evidence is eyewitness testimonies. Diop validates the testimonies of many people, like Herodotus, which state that Egyptian people had black skin. He also argues that after the conquest of Egypt by Alexander cross breeding between Greeks and Egyptians happened. If the Egyptian people were white skinned, then their would be no mixed races from this cross breeding. But there was in fact the creation of mixed races.
3. Dr. Diop’s thesis is challenged by Raymond Mauny. Mauny agrees that there were people with Black skin in Egypt but it cannot be assumed that the majority of Egyptians were black. He also uses evidence of Egyptian painting and sculptures of how Egyptians colored themselves compared to others. He also argues that just because Egyptians colonized Ethiopia and Colchida we cannot assume that they were black from that information. I do agree with this analysis. This analysis points out that many assumptions were made in Diop’s argument. I agree with this analysis that every hypothesis must have solid evidence to back it up, not just assumptions.
1.The Hamitic Hypothesis is a theory made by scientists with the objective of discrediting the African people. The theory states that everything of value ever found in Africa was brought there by white people, more specifically the Hamites. The Hamites were allegedly a branch of Cacasian race. While this is the original theory, closer examination of history brought about the idea that the Hamites were believed to be Negroes. Sanders uses the Biblical story of Noah as a way of showing that the sons of Ham were Black. In the story, Noah curses his son Ham and because of this, the generation of Ham is seen a subservient to the average human. Sanders also points out that this theory was used as a justification for slavery throughout the world. This is important in African history because it shows how some false perceptions and stereotypes were placed on the African people.
ReplyDelete2. Dr. Cheikh Anta Diops argues that the Egyptians were black. Dr. Diop states that his claim can be validated by citing the works of Herodotus. Herodotus(Greek Historian)theorized that the Egyptian people were Black based on geography and relations with neighboring cultures. Herodotus stated, "It is certain that the natives of the country are black with the heat" He goes on to add that the flooding of the Nile cannot be from melting snow. Diop also discussed how Herodotus shows that the Ethiopians considered Egypt to be a colony which shows that migration occurred between that cultures and ultimately this evidence suggest that they were of the same race.
3.Raymond Mauny challenged Diops claims by stating "that there were Negroes among the Egyptians and that a prolonged mixing has left profound Negroid imprints among the people of the country has not been denied by anyone for a long time. While Mauny seems to back the fact that Blacks were apart of the Egyptian society, he believes that was a result of mixed breeding. I believe that Blacks were that base of Egyptian population and other races surrounded that.
1. The Hamitic Hypothesis is no more than a convoluted fabrication of African history, which aims to explain the connection between black Africans and Egyptians. It is rooted in the curse that Noah lays upon his son, Ham. The curse states that his ancestors will have hair grown in “kinks,” their members “shamelessly elongated,” and they are to be enslaved for hundreds of years. Calling this a hypothesis is an insult to all credible hypotheses. However, there is a concrete reason it remains a hypothesis, and not a theory. This is important to our understanding of African history because the Hamitic Hypothesis functioned as a justification to Europeans for the enslavement of the African people.
ReplyDelete2. Despite common belief that Egyptians were more caucasian than black, Diop argues quite the contrary. Diop argues against the widely accepted Hamitic hypothesis, using Herodotus’s eye-witness account while in Egypt. Herodotus observed that the Egyptian people were much darker, and were endowed with similar features as the Hamitic race. I’m sure that at the dismay of many ethnocentric historians (to say the least), Diop uses an account from the “father of history,” to break apart the Hamitic Hypothesis. Diop also makes solid connections between kingships of Egypt and Uganda. His connection indicates that Egyptians and black Africans do, in fact, share the same root. Again, this is why it remains a hypothesis, and not a theory.
3. Raymond Mauny picks up the torch to challenge Diop’s argument. Mauny takes aim at Diop’s citation of Herodotus’s account of the Egyptian people. He essentially argues that just because he observed a few black people, does not mean that the entirety of Egypt was black. I agree with Mauny’s argument against Herodotus’s account because in the Basel Davidson video, he explains that Herodotus was unable to explore the majority of Egypt because his boat was stopped at the first cataract of the Nile.
1. the Hamitic Hypothesis is an ideology which states that everything of value or importance in Africa was brought/developed by the hamites, or white people. It is important to African history because for hundreds of years white people used this train of thought to justify their actions of enslaving blacks and exploiting their lands and brethren. Most of the so called evidence that Sanders used came from the bible and it involved a close study of the depiction in which Ham was given.
ReplyDelete2. Dr. Diop worked towards discovering the true race of the early Egyptians. There was much speculation as to whether they were caucasian or negro. Diop concluded that the Egyptians were in fact black. For the most part it seems the majority of this conclusion came from the earlier studies of Herodotus. Herodotus visited
Egypt firsthand and describes them as being black and Diop makes a connection between them with Ethiopians as well as Ugandans.
3. Dr. Diop's arguments were challenged by Mauny. Mauny counter argues Diop's use of Herodotus's work by claiming there are different interpretations of his writings. For example, the term black doesn't necessarily mean of African descent, rather just a darker skin tone than those found commonly in Europe or Asia. Mauny believes that Egypt was a melting pot of various races and not just black. I agree with this analysis but also believe that blacks migrating North from the South nile could have provided a base population to grow from.
1.) The “Hamitic Hypothesis” suggest that Africa was a primitive wilderness inhabited by peoples by peoples who were civilized by the superior, Caucasian migrating Hamites, who spread their superior political and cultural ideas from Egypt throughout Africa. Sanders first begins with a passage from the Bible, referring that Noah cursed his youngest son Ham, stating “a servant of servants shall he be.” Then, an oral tradition of Jews depicts the descendants of Ham to be sinful black degenerates with hair twisted into kinks, and swollen lips. This gave to rise of slavery in the world with the concept of Negroes being subhuman. Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt came to the conclusion the Egyptians were “Negroid” and highly civilized whereas Count Volney states that negroes and and whites are the same species. In more modern times it was found that only Noah’s son Canaan was cursed, not Ham. So Hamites were uncursed and were capable of high civilization. European travelers to Africa found a variety of physical types and their ethnocentrism made them value those who looked more like themselves. As the Hamitic Hypothesis evolutionized, it became more widely accepted. This is important to understand in African History because it portrays the racism and bias approach that Europeans took in the past. It also aids in the understanding of the rationalizing of slavery.
ReplyDelete2.) Dr. Diop argues that that unlike the Hamitic Hypothesis, Egyptians were indeed Blacks. He uses evidence provided by a Greek historian by the name of Herodotus, who provides several arguments to prove his theory. Herodotus established great credibility in his time and was well known for being scrupulous, objective, and scientific. Diop also suggest that Noah’s cursed son was put in Genesis in retaliation against Egyptians who enslaved Jews.
3.) Raymond Mauny challenges Dr. Diop’s by clarifying what Herodotus was claiming in the quotations used. Herodotus was not referring to Egypt when he asserted “the heat makes the people black” and highlighted the Greeks tendency to call those with darker complexion black even though they were not of African race. Mauny states that Egypt is the croosroads of three continents, therefore it is a melting pot of races. With that being said, it is untruthful to claim that Egypt was entirely one race. I agree with Mauny due to the lack of information by Dr. Diop. Mauny was able to clarify on many of Dr. Diop’s points of argument.
1. The Hamitic Hypothesis is the idea that caucasian Hamites were the ones who brought civilization to Africa. This belief is rooted even deeper in ignorance with the idea that Africa was a "primitive wilderness inhabited by peoples who were civilized by the superior, Caucasian migrating Hamites" (2). Edith Sanders argues this hypothesis by explaining that there were no white Hamites which has been proved by the oral traditions of the Hebraic community. This hypothesis plays such a critical role in our understanding of the history of Africa and our world. The Hamitic Hypothesis allows for the belief that Africans are inferior. This hypothesis of them being "less than" validated the institution of slavery. Furthermore, this hypothesis robbed Africans of participating in their own historical culture. It robbed them of their artistic, intellectual, and political capabilities. In the book it states, "in the eyes of the world, the Negro stood stripped of any intellectual or artistic genius and of any ability at all which would allow him now, in the past, or in the future, to be the master of his life and country" (18). This hypothesis plays a crucial role in understanding race relations that are still ongoing in the world today.
ReplyDelete2. The argument that Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop made against the Hamitic Hypothesis is that Egyptians were black Africans. His argument is centralized that all of the available evidence proves that the Egyptians were indeed black. This supports his further argument that since Egyptians are the ancestors of Africans today, they should be credited as the first people with the systems of mathematics, science, religion, and medicine.
3. Raymond Mauny counters the argument that Diop makes. Mauny has examined the proofs that Diop used to support his claim that Egyptians were black, and while Mauny does not argue that, he does argue that the Egyptians are not the ancestors of the present population of West Africa. Mauny makes the argument that Egypt was full of multiple ethnic groups. He also claims that to credit the civilization of Egypt to one specific group would be racism. He also argues that while there were black Egyptians, the whole or majority of the Egyptian population was not black. While I agree that there were definitely black Egyptians, I have to support Maury's argument that it was more a melting pot than one specific race.
1. The Hamitic hypothesis is basically a propaganda statement for the encouragement of African slavery. It states that everything of value in Africa was brought there by the Hamites (caucasians). Sanders references scholars who believe that the stories were based on needs. The Israelite's need to "rationalize their subjugation to Canaan," and the white Christians of the time needing a cheap workforce. This is extremely important in understanding African history because it shows the unbiased view of many scholars/historians. The need for something to fit into a timeline or story sometimes outweighs the truth.
ReplyDelete2. Diop believes that the Egyptians were black on the account of eyewitnesses of the period. Diop references Herodotus who insisted on the "Negro character" of the Egyptians, and also Strabo who believed the Ethiopians, Egyptians, and Colchians belonged to the same race. It is summed up best by Maspero, who states that by "unanimous testimony of ancient historians, they belonged to an African race."
3. Raymond Mauny challenges Diop's argument on many fronts. Diop bases his ideas on all of modern Egyptology being a European racist plot. Mauny challenges Diop's use of Herodotus as well because he was unable to explore all of Egypt. Mauny also states that the quotes were misrepresented in Diop's work, and that Herodotus was talking about the Ethiopians when he said "the heat makes the people black." Although Mauny provides a legitimate challenge, his arguments seem to be based on interpretation rather than historical fact.
1) The Hamitic Hypothesis suggests that a group of superior caucasians are credited with the maturation of african societies. This comes from the biblical story of how Noah cursed his son Ham and his descendants because of his dark skin. This also implies that there is a justification for slavery. Most of Sanders evidence comes from documents written by historians as well as the bible evidence. I think this is important to the understanding of African history because Africa is where the human race originated and it is vital for all people to understand where they came from and from what circumstances.
ReplyDelete2) Diop's argument states that Egyptians had dark skin and were not Caucasian. He uses writings from Herodotus who records that the Egyptians were in fact black.
3) Dr. Diop was challenged by Raymond Mauny. Mauny says that just because the Egyptians were said to be darker, doesn't necessarily mean that they are black. I agree with Mauny because Dr. Diop's hypothesis has too many holes and he only makes assumptions from his evidence, he doesn't have clear, solid facts of anything.
1. The Hamitic hypothesis is a widely discredited theory that suggest that Africa's once primitive societies were civilized by migrating people of Caucasian decent and that any cultural advancements were a result of influence from Hamites. Sanders argues that the Hamites were not white making the Hamitic hypothesis invalid.This is important to how we view Africa because it helps clear up the misconception that great African culture were the result of Caucasian influences and instead points to the fact that Africa had many independent and civilized cultures.
ReplyDelete2. Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop argued that the Egyptians were in fact black. The evidence that Dr. Diop used to support this claim was the similarities in customs between the Egyptians and West African cultures like those found in Senegal. In both Senegal and Egypt the monarchs reigned under similar rules like only being able to hold power if you are completely healthy. In both of these cultures a decline of health or energy was a symbol of power and the fact that many African monarchies shared this custom points to a deep connections of cultures.
3.Dr. Diops hypothesis is challenged by professor Raymond Mauny who argues that the Egyptians were not only black and decedents of West African societies but were a diverse group of people and a combination of cultures. Mauny supports this claim by referring to Greek historian Herodotus only refers to the Egyptians as black because the Egyptians were of a darker pigmentation than the Greeks. Mauny also uses anthropology to support his claim, suggesting that ancient depictions and remains point to the Egyptians having Mediterranean influence as well as African. I agree with Maunys interpretation because it only makes sense that a powerful civilization such as the Egyptians would of had influences from the many societies they traded with.
1. "This Hamitic hypotheses inferred that Africa was a primitive wilderness inhabited by peoples who were civilized by the superior, Caucasian migrating Hamites". It devalues everything that the people of Africa did, all because the idea of Africans doing anything great is so ridiculous. Sanders argues that there were no white Hamites and that the civilization of the Western world in Africa was deeper than those of both Athens and Rome. The research for Sanders argument comes from both biblical references as well as other historian research.
ReplyDelete2.Dr. Diop argues that the people of ancient Egypt were mostly black rather than caucasian. He uses Herodotus observations that the Egyptian people were black, different of those in the Hamitic race.
3.Raymond Mauny challenges Dr. Diop's thesis by arguing that Egyptians were black just because there were blacks in the civilization. Diop states that the people were darker but that does not mean the people were from Africa. I agree with Mauny on this one. Dr. Diop's thesis has too many holes in it. The people could have come from across the Middle East. The people were said to be darker but again, that does not necessarily mean they were black.
1.) The ”Hamitic Hypothesis” argues that “Africa was a primitive wilderness inhabited by peoples who were civilized by the superior, Caucasian migrating Hamites.” (page 2). Sanders makes her argument with evidence from the bible, specifically excerpts from the book of genesis regarding Noah and his sons, particularly Ham. Over time the theory has evolved but has remained the same that a “negroid” population is not the origin of Egypt. It is important to understand this theory in order to understand the bias and racism of early historical accounts of Egypt. With new knowledge gained it is important to delineate from this idea to a more scientific and correct understanding of the origins of Egypt and African History.
ReplyDelete2.) Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop’s argument is that Egyptians were black, or perhaps more politically correct African. He uses evidence from Herodotus’s personal accounts of Africa. He states that these accounts are a reliable source as he gives instances as to how the “father of history” is not biased and clearly states when his accounts are first hand or hearsay.
3.) Raymond Mauny challenges Diop’s thesis. He believes that there were indeed blacks within Egypt but does not believe that they were the majority or in control of Egypt. He uses a large portion of evidence from Coon and his own careful examination of Diop’s data. Mauny believes that certain inferences Diop concluded to be true were maybe misleading from the writings of Herodotus. I do not agree with Mauny’s analysis, I believe there is sufficient evidence to prove that man originated in Africa and it is only logical that through migration these people move northward to the Mediterranean. Through trade and intermingling it is understandable that skin color lightened over the years.
1. The Hamitic hypothesis is a hypothesis that states, all culture and invention found in the ancient continent of Africa was the doing of a group of Caucasians, the Hamites. The hypothesis goes on to say that iron working, which we learned in class was originated in Africa, was the work of this traveling group of Caucasian people who provided infinite knowledge and understanding to the native savages. This theory was widely publicized in ancient times due to the need for euro-asian superiority of the African continent. This hypothesis became the basis for the need to colonize and "civilize" the savages that roamed the great dark continent. We have learned through the class that this hypothesis holds no barring when evidence from the archaeological record is consulted. Iron working was originally a trade of the peoples of Africa, as well as the domestication of plant life into agricultural society. As well as all life which originated and migrated from the continent of Africa.
ReplyDelete2. Dr. Diop's research and works pointed to the fact that he thought of all of Africa as one Black race. He argues that there is no way to culturally divide the people of the Nile valley region into Egyptian, Nubians, etc. All of the people from that area were of the same "race" and developed together under the prosperity brought on by the Nile's fertility. He goes on to assert the question, what is a true Black person if not someone who developed on the continent of Africa along the banks of the Nile. Other anthropologist have described the Nubians as true black people and he doesn't see a way to justify separating these groups.
3. Many people came to the side opposing Dr. Diops theory that Egyptians must be "true black people" due to the area they developed. One major argument was along the lines that with so much trade and intermingling amongst other peoples of the world, Egyptians could not be "true black people". Scientist argued that the Egyptians were a mix at best. They were darker than the greeks but due to euro-asian influences they were unable to be classified as just another African civilization. In regards to this point, I do think that due to the intense intermingling amongst other cultures that Egyptians probably did not have the same developmental lineage as say the Nubians. However, I don't think this disqualifies them from being of the same "race" as the other people who shared refuge in the Nile river valley.
1. The Hamitic Hypothesis proposes that everything of value in Africa was first introduced by a group of people called the Hamites. The Hamites are believed to have been a part of the Caucasian race. Most of the evidence of this hypothesis comes from the bible, as Ham, a descendant of Noah, were cursed with being black. Even though these two ideas contradict each other, the theory is still analyzed from the perspective that the Hamites were white. Another bit of evidence that supports the Hamitic Hypothesis was that the language of the Hamites belonged to the Caucasian race. This entire theory is, however, just a theory about the creation of Egypt and the lineage of Africa.
ReplyDelete2. Dr. Anta Diop argues that Egyptians and other similar groups were black. Diop Argues directly against the Hamitic hypothesis by examining the Herodotus story of Egypt. Herodotus said that the Egyptians were much darker than the Hamites. He also argues that since the ancient Egyptians were black and that they were the ancestors of modern day Africans, they should be credited with some advancements in science and religion.
3. Mauny argues against Diop. He tries to disqualify the writings of Herodotus by saying that his writings can be freely interpreted and that being black means just having a darker complexion than others. Mauny proposes that Egypt actually held many groups of people including different races and ethnicities. I believe that Mauny is correct in his hypothesis that while he cannot refute the fact that there were black Egyptians, there were probably a variety of people in Egypt and deciding that one group of people were the group that made all the scientific advancements would be racist.
1) The Hamitic Hypothesis states that anything of value that has ever been found in Africa was brought there by the Hamites. Sanders argue that the Hamites were not white making the Hamitic hypothesis invalid. Most of Sanders evidence comes from documents written by historians as well as the Bible. It is very crucial to understand the importance of Africa because this is where everyone originated from. If we continue to not acknowledge our history and where we came from the more information will be lost when we do decide to acknowledge.
ReplyDelete2) Dr. Diop’s argument was that Egyptians had dark skin and had always been dark skinned humans. His evidence comes from Herodotus, a Greek historian who observed the people and culture of Egypt. Then Dr. Diop provides evidence from the Bible. Dr. Diop also notes the similarities of both the African and Egyptian kingship.
3) Raymond Mauny challenges Dr. Diop’s thesis. Raymond Mauny rejects the evidence from Herodotus. Mauny believes that there were mixed breeding between the Egyptians and that not all Egyptians were dark skinned. I have to agree with Raymond Mauny’s theory because with such a vast empire and trading, it is very hard to only have one race.
The Hamitic hypothesis essentailly holds that a son of Noah, Ham was the patriarch of the people who brought essentially anything of value into African culture. It holds that Ham was cursed with darker skin, yet was still of caucasian origins. It later evolved into Ham being cursed to serve his relatives. This was then used as a justification for slavery. Sander's argument is basically that this hypothesis is wrong, and she goes on to supply several examples of travelers describing the natives in derogatory terms. She also points to Hebrews using it as an excuse to take over Canaan, and then she points out that it grew in the (plague resultant) labor-poor areas of Europe as a way to justify the taking of Africans as a source of cheap labor. As to why it important to our understanding of African history: it shaped the views of the Western world regarding Africa for a considerable amount of time. Because of this, we must now regard any work past a certain age as suspect in it's accuracy, due to the inherent bias present as a result of the prevailing theories of the time.
ReplyDelete2. Diop contends that the Egyptians were of Black origin, not caucasian. He presents the writings of Herodotus as further proof, as well as later excavations confirming Herodotus' credibility in such matters.
3. Mauny challenges Diop essentially on grounds of relative language. He states that all Herodotus meant when he said "Black" was that the Egyptians were darker than the Greeks. He uses the example of a Nordic person describing a Southern European as "dark," however they are not anything near what would be considered "black" by anyone. He further goes on to point out the presence of other races in Egypt, and hence the inference of interbreeding. Personally, I think he's right. The Nile would be like a magnet for people in the area to go towards, so even if the Egyptians started out as "pure" Africans, they likely didn't stay that way very long. Who to credit the advancements in various fields to beyond simply "the Egyptians" is another question, and one that is very likely impossible to answer. Diop mentions the Jews, and the attempts to limit cross breeding, as well as the presence of multiple non-native colonies at one point. This is further evidence (to me) that Egypt was not "pure" racially. It would have been nigh impossible to prevent all these groups from crossbreeding, both with each other and with the native Egyptians. This alone would mean that the idea of a "pure" Egypt is, to be polite, untenable.
1.) The Hamitic Hypothesis speaks of Hamites, who are apparently of white descent, coming from Egypt into Africa spreading their superiority over the cultures around them making them civilized. On the other hand Sanders believes the Hamites were not white as intended, but instead using biblical myths saying they are descendants of black descents from Ham who was one of Noah's sons. Which all this is important on understanding African history because it gives you a brief look into the relations that went on in Africa to shape the people you see today.
ReplyDelete2.) Dr. Diop come to believe that Egyptian people where in fact black originated from Africa itself instead of from East Asia. This fact is backed by eyewitnesses during the time, Herodotus, who points out the fact that Greek civilization took a lot of the Egyptians ideas on running a civilization. Also brings up the fact that if Egyptians were white, would they have not remained that away?
3.) Diop's idea was challenged by Raymond Mauny who rejected the whole idea. Mauny believes that Egyptians may have had African descents but does not think that was the only population there and considers the thought to be true racism. I do somewhat agree with the idea that its not only the African population in Egypt because if you look at the world today people move all over and begin their lives they see best, meaning that mass migration came about.
1. The Hamitic Hypothesis is a hunch that believes that ancient African people are wild before they were civilized by the superior like light-skinned people or Asians. Sanders cited historical biblical texts to make her argument. In the evidence she found, it confirmed that western civilization in Egypt were deeper than those at Athens or Rome. She also found that the descendants of Ham are black, sinful, and degenerate based on the description from the oral traditions of Hebraic community. Understand of this theory is important because it determine whether Africa had their own civilization and culture for itself.
ReplyDelete2. Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop argued that the Egyptians were black Africans. He used the skulls and hairs that were found in the most ancient periods and the mummies of the dynastic period to figure out his conclusion that pre-Roman Egyptians were Negroes.
3. Dr. Diop's thesis was challenged by Raymond Mauny. Raymond had examined some of the principal proofs provideby Dr.Diop and disagreed about his idea all Egyptians are black. I think Raymond Mauny’s idea is more believable than Diop’s. The race of ancient Egyptians could be varies, they may be black, brown, even white. Without enough scientific evidences, all theories are just hunches.
1. The Hamitic process is a theory defined as a race of very fair skinned, tall peoples hailing from Southwest Asia or Egypt. Allegedly, they fanned out through Africa in order to spread their natural occurring intellect, political beliefs, and culture. According to this hypothesis, everything great that has ever come out of the continent of Africa from the Pyramids of Giza to the advanced agricultural practices can be attributed to this group. Sanders’ argument states that according to the bible, the Hamites were black and they were the descendants of Noah who fell to a curse and would be cursed from then on. Ham was cursed to pass on kinky hair, a dark complexion, and the natural place in society as a slave. From then on in history, Western peoples as well as others would use this ideology to oppress Blacks and downgrade their success. The more blacks became a commodity, the further using the words of Sanders and excerpts from the bible to validate treatment towards African became universally prevalent.
ReplyDelete2. Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop argues evidence clearly states that Egyptians were entirely black, and were the first to form science, religion, medicine, and other staples of educational thought. Being the origin of civilization, many important advancements were founded by the Negro Egyptians, such as agriculture and mathematics. Diop uses many sources to prove his hypotheses, such as Alexander the Great’s rule over Egypt as evidence as they were encouraged to mix the people and the cultures. If the Egyptians were indeed white, then they would have stayed white. Since they were black, the shade of the Egyptian people continued to blend. Diop also quotes Herodotus, the “father of history”, whose eyewitness accounts state that the people of Egypt had darker toned skin, wooly hair, and compared to the Greeks were indeed black.
3.Raymond Mauny is one of the ones to challenge Diops ideology. He declares that Herodotus has faulty claims, and that the Egyptians were not as historically progressive as Diop claims them to be. Mauny does say that Egypt was composed of some Black Africans, but they were not the only ones in the area, as there were merchants, travelers, conquerors, and other varying races that helped shaped the history and the culture. I have to say that although Diop has a couple thoughts that should be noted, Mauny is the one who should be believed. The geography of Egypt places it at the intersection of three continents, so early on there had to be some type of intermingling.
Egypt & Africa
ReplyDelete1. The Hamitic Hypothesis is one that articulates anything complex or “of value” ever discovered in Africa was not conceived from an African culture or race, but from the Hamites, a part of the “white” race. This sort of thinking is why the history of Africa is often disputed and disregarded because it has been assumed that Africans don’t have much history to and that members of the Caucasian race are the reason for advanced civilizations such as the one found to have existed in modern-day Egypt. One quote Sanders’ utilizes to make her argument is an assertion from scholars Graves and Patai that states, “Negroes are doomed to serve men of lighter color was a view gratefully borrowed by Christians in the middle ages.” The notion that people of darker skin color are subservient to people of lighter color help explain why people accept the Hamitic Hypothesis and the idea that people of darker skin color couldn’t have created a complex civilization and have such an intriguing history. It is important to know the Hamitic Hypothesis, so you can be able to understand why our understanding of the history of Africa is biased and often influenced by many of the Caucasian scholars who study and report their findings/opinions on the culture and race of past African Societies.
2. Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop argues that the ancient civilians of Egypt were indeed people of dark skin color and that they were very much similar to the people of Ethiopia. Dr. Diop cites Diodorus of Sicily who claims that Ethiopians regard Egyptians as one of their colonies, and he concludes from this remark that,” if the Egyptians and Ethiopians were not of the same race, Diodorus would have emphasized the impossibility of considering [Egypt] as a colony.” Moreover Herodotus gave us an “eyewitness account” that confirmed to us Egyptians were truly black and not only did he do that but he also inferred that, “ Greece borrowed from Egypt all the elements of her civilization,[…], and that Egypt was the cradle of civilization.” This supports Diop’s argument that Egyptians were indeed darker colored people and that they influenced other civilizations which contrasts the notion that the Hamitic Hypothesis gave off, that people of a lighter color came in and ruled in Egypt, thus setting up a complex society.
3. Raymond Mauny offered a challenge to Diop’s thesis. Mauny uses an assertion from C.S. Coon, The Races of Europe, to support his thesis that people of Ancient Egypt were white people. Coon’s finding that numerous types of the upper classes in their antique portraits looked, “strikingly like modern Europeans” thus goes to back up Mauny’s belief that Egyptian’s were of a lighter colored race belonging to possibly Indo-Europeans. I agree with Raymond Mauny’s analysis that the civilization of ancient Egypt were not indeed of a dark African race, however I refute his findings that they were similar to many modern Europeans. I believe that the civilization of Ancient Egypt had a mixture of skin colors ranging from the dark African skin color that is more common in Western Africa to the light colored Africans that resemble that of the Berbers.
1. The Hamitic process is a theory defined as a race of very fair skinned, tall peoples hailing from Southwest Asia or Egypt. Allegedly, they fanned out through Africa in order to spread their natural occurring intellect, political beliefs, and culture. According to this hypothesis, everything great that has ever come out of the continent of Africa from the Pyramids of Giza to the advanced agricultural practices can be attributed to this group. Sanders’ argument states that according to the bible, the Hamites were black and they were the descendants of Noah who fell to a curse and would be cursed from then on. Ham was cursed to pass on kinky hair, a dark complexion, and the natural place in society as a slave. From then on in history, Western peoples as well as others would use this ideology to oppress Blacks and downgrade their success. The more blacks became a commodity, the further using the words of Sanders and excerpts from the bible to validate treatment towards African became universally prevalent.
ReplyDelete2. Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop argues evidence clearly states that Egyptians were entirely black, and were the first to form science, religion, medicine, and other staples of educational thought. Being the origin of civilization, many important advancements were founded by the Negro Egyptians, such as agriculture and mathematics. Diop uses many sources to prove his hypotheses, such as Alexander the Great’s rule over Egypt as evidence as they were encouraged to mix the people and the cultures. If the Egyptians were indeed white, then they would have stayed white. Since they were black, the shade of the Egyptian people continued to blend. Diop also quotes Herodotus, the “father of history”, whose eyewitness accounts state that the people of Egypt had darker toned skin, wooly hair, and compared to the Greeks were indeed black.
3.Raymond Mauny is one of the ones to challenge Diops ideology. He declares that Herodotus has faulty claims, and that the Egyptians were not as historically progressive as Diop claims them to be. Mauny does say that Egypt was composed of some Black Africans, but they were not the only ones in the area, as there were merchants, travelers, conquerors, and other varying races that helped shaped the history and the culture. I have to say that although Diop has a couple thoughts that should be noted, Mauny is the one who should be believed. The geography of Egypt places it at the intersection of three continents, so early on there had to be some type of intermingling.
The Hamitic Hypothesis originally proposes that when Noah’s son Ham was cursed and banished, his black descendants went on to settle Africa. Sanders argues that created a paradigm whereby “the Negro was seen as a descendent of Ham, bearing the stigma of Noah’s curse.” (11) She shows how, paradoxically, as the slave trade developed the Hamitic hypothesis established black people as a “brother” of Europeans, but an inferior one that could be “exploited.” (11) Sander argues that the hypothesis was updated in order to fit new developments in European understanding of African history. During Napoleon’s campaign in Egypt, his scientists discovered that “the beginnings of Western civilization were earlier than the civilizations of the Greeks and Romans.” (12) To Europeans, it was unacceptable that “Negroids” could hold such a legacy, and as a result the Hamitic hypothesis was updated to say that “it was indeed Canaan who was cursed” rather than Ham. (12, 14)
ReplyDeleteDiop’s argues for a Negro origin of Egyptians. As evidence, he provides the accounts of the Greek historian Herodotus who described Egyptians “black doves” and compared the skin tone of Ethiopians to that of Indians. (32) Diop also looks to the “practice of replacing a king whenever his strength declines” as clearly related to practices that occur elsewhere in Africa. (39)
Diop’s thesis is challenged by Raymond Mauny, who rejects the hypothesis of “attributing to Indo-Europeans what I attribute to races more or less brown.” (41) As part of his evidence he points to the existence of mummies who only have “long-hair.” (42) Mauny also states that the European interpretation of Egyptians as black was a statement made relative to their own light skin tone. He states that “the sea-peoples of the Mediterranean” were represented by Egyptians as having similar racial characteristics as themselves, leading Mauny to argue that Egyptians would have appeared similar to Mediterranean peoples rather than black people. (43) In another strategy, Mauny states that Diop’s argument is inherently biased, as it stems from a period before African independence when Africans… frustrated by their national history, prepared the way for independence by celebrating Negritude…” (48)
I agree with Mauny to the extent that ancient statements about racial appearance should be contextualized and examined in terms of what information and relative comparisons were used by their authors. But I believe that Mauny’s closing argument that Diop wrote from the perspective of a biased student caught up in a revolutionary, nationalistic and therefore revisionist fervor is simply an ad hominem attack. As such it not only weakens Mauny’s own argument, but seems to reveal Mauny’s true motivation for writing his thesis in the first place.
1. The Hamitic Hypothesis states that all valuable knowledge that came from Africa was brought there by the Hamites. The Hamites are apparently a branch of the Caucasian race. The hypothesis becomes confusing; because some say that the Hamites are of black origin. Some readers of the Old Testament in the Bible say that Ham was the bad child Noah and was then cursed. He was cursed with having black skin, which would be passed onto his later descendants. Many also used that version of the hypothesis to justify slavery and the subhuman nature of black people. Later on, anthropologists brought up the idea that Egyptians were of Caucasian descent and so the opposite theory developed. “Politics and race theories seems natural allies; they provided a seemingly cogent ideological framework for colonial expansion and exploitation” (page 16). Linguistics became another piece of evidence that different groups used for their arguments. Sanders uses these different pieces of evidence to show that most arguments for the hypothesis leaning one way or the other are not concrete, but subjective and used to rationalize slavery and the subordinate “nature” of black people.
ReplyDelete2. Dr. Diop raised the question: what were the Egyptians? He argues that they were indeed black. He cites Diodorus of Sicily who notes that the Nile dragged mud from Ethiopia to create Egypt and that their laws were taken from Ethiopia meaning they were of the same descent. Dr. Diop also notes that Egypt were descendants of Ham from the Bible, the ancestor of blacks. He also cites historian Herodotus, who also talked about the Nile and its role in the relation between Egypt and Libya. The Egyptians fused with the Greeks, who were white, making the Egyptians raced mixed. If they were mixed, they had to have started out black.
3. Raymond Mauny challenged Dr. Diop’s thesis. He argues that Diop’s thesis is based on the thought that Egypt has been trying to get rid of evidence that proved Egyptians to be white. Mauny thinks Diop’s revelation of this is a “falsification of history”. He cites Coon who studied their body types and found that their narrow hips and small hands and feet are Mediterranean type. He references the painting and sculptures and notes their racial characteristics as light skinned. I agree with the analysis in that Diop’s evidence was not quite as concrete or strong. The study of the facial and body type/structure makes one think a lot harder about what they really looked like.
1. Historians have begun to examine the story from the perspective of ‘the losers,’ by finding and examining stories from the perspective of Donatist writers. As part of this they use stories from Donatist martyrs and
ReplyDelete2. The Roman Church and the Donatists differ primarily in their opinions about who should be able to lead religious ceremonies. Christians were persecuted by the Roman State before legalization in 311 for not worshipping the Roman gods. This created an opposition between Christians and the State that, although not ordained by the Bible, persisted after 311. Donatists found themselves at odds with other Christians about the seriousness of traditores, those who had handed over religious texts during persecution. The Donatists after 311 didn’t think traditores should be allowed to lead ceremonies in the church. This led to the rejection of the authority of the Roman bishop in Carthage which was inherently a rejection of the State’s authority, as Rome was a theocracy.
3. The first issue in understanding the stories is the genre. Although there are other forms, the two major literary forms of the stories are that of either the acta or the passiones. The acta are taken from the publicly available public records, which adds a degree of “monotony” to the stories in that they seek to establish the facts and identities of those involved. The passiones conversely seek to highlight the suffering of the martyrs, as they are often used to inspire others and sometimes even to instruct as to how one should act when persecuted and tortured. As part of this, the second issue with understanding the stories is the degree of their historical accuracy. The legal measures during this time were not always strict and by nature of being written by Donatist sympathizers, the stories involve a degree of bias. The third issue is that torture, which by today’s standards may not seem that gruesome. But torture during this time was also an essential punishment utilized by the Roman legal system, and this legality and social acceptance has to be remembered when reading these stories.
4. Cyprian was a bishop who was accused of fostering an “impious attitude” among his people and he was executed in an unspecified manner. Felix was also a bishop who refused to turn over sacred documents to authorities. He was beheaded by Roman soldiers. Maxima and Donatilla were two young girls who refused to “sacrifice” or renounce Christianity. Secunda is a young girl who was “engaged many times, but refused them all because she loved God too much.” They were initially to be fed to a bear, but after the bear refused to eat them, they were instead “executed by the sword.”
5. In general I do not think gender plays a major role in these new interpretations. One exception however is with Secunda. Her punishment seems to be because she refuses to take a husband on account of her Christian faith and unwillingness to marry someone who would “corrupt [her] virginity.” In this story, the punishment seems to be in response to the refusal to fulfill a gender role.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete4. Cyprian was punished for so-called “conspiracy” and as an enemy of Roman deities and their Gods so he and his followers dies by being sliced by a sword. Felix the Bishop was punished for refusing to hand over sacred books which he was beheaded by a sword for refusing to do. Maxima, Donatilla, and Secunda were all punished for refusing to sacrifice to the emperor because their true faith was in God. They were first ordered to death to be eaten by a bear however the bear didn’t kill them so then they were ordered to be killed by sword and thus they all died by getting beheaded.
Delete5. Gender does play a role in the Donatist movement because throughout the stories and description of these times you see all leader type positions as males. The bishops, governors, and emperors all has men. It even says that punishment was harsher for men and that women and children got treated more fairly. The women martyrs of Maxima, Donatilla, and Secunda show how even females were important to the Donatist and their Christian sect.